Complete Peanuts 1967-68
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
is a layout error in it. In place of the May 3, 1967 strip, there is a
second copy of the May 1, 1967 strip.
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
Tom
the book!
<tc...@lsa.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:47fb84cf$0$301$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
>>I got an early copy of the Complete Peanuts 1967-68 and noticed that there
>> is a layout error in it. In place of the May 3, 1967 strip, there is a
>> second copy of the May 1, 1967 strip.
In article <fth67j$se6$1...@news.datemas.de>, Tom <vidk...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Hopefully that's only in the advance copies and not in the final version of
>the book!
Yes, I just got email from Fantagraphics:
<The box set version, for instance, will be fine. And of course we'll
<print the missing strip in 1969-1970 as an erratum.
<
<Printer glitch.
David Windhorst
> I wrote:
>
>>>I got an early copy of the Complete Peanuts 1967-68 and noticed that there
>>>is a layout error in it. In place of the May 3, 1967 strip, there is a
>>>second copy of the May 1, 1967 strip.
>
>
> In article <fth67j$se6$1...@news.datemas.de>, Tom <vidk...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Hopefully that's only in the advance copies and not in the final version of
>>the book!
>
>
> Yes, I just got email from Fantagraphics:
>
> <The box set version, for instance, will be fine. And of course we'll
> <print the missing strip in 1969-1970 as an erratum.
> <
> <Printer glitch.
So -- if we wait a bit to order a single, non-boxed copy, do
we know if the error will be fixed? Or did it get into all
of the first printing (however large that may be)?
dw
Covenant
"David Windhorst" <dbwin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i7mdnXnBtqBuY2Ha...@earthlink.com...
It will make it rarer !!
;' )
--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
natge...@gmail.com
> <The box set version, for instance, will be fine. And of course we'll
> <print the missing strip in 1969-1970 as an erratum.
I wonder if they'll fix the date error in the introduction?
Tom
year for Christmas. :)
-Tom
<tc...@lsa.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:47fcc49f$0$297$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Good catch! (The writer of the introduction, John Waters, mistakenly says
that the book's strips come from 1965-66 instead of 1967-68.)
Here's another curiosity from the same volume that I've wondered about
before. The 10/18/68 strip shows Franklin leaving Charlie Brown's
neighborhood after having been freaked out by the strange people he's
met. Charlie Brown chases after him, but it's too late. The question
is, what is the correct ordering of the final two panels? The ordering
in "The Complete Peanuts," "Happy Birthday, Charlie Brown," and "Peanuts
Classics" is:
3rd panel:
Franklin: I didn't mind the girl in the booth or the beagle with the goggles,
but that business about the "Great Pumpkin"......no, sir!
CB: But..
4th panel:
Schroeder: Hi! Did you guys know there are only sixty more days until
Beethoven's birthday?
CB: Oh, good grief!
Franklin: Like, wow!
However, in the Fawcett Crest book "Don't Give Up, Charlie Brown," the order
is reversed. The order above seems somewhat more logical. However, the one
strong piece of evidence for the other order is that Schulz's signature is
in the panel where Charlie Brown says "But..." In every other strip in this
volume of Complete Peanuts that I've checked, Schulz's signature appears in
the final panel of the strip, even if he has to squeeze it into a tiny space
somewhere.
Any opinions? I suppose that checking microfilm would give us some more
information, though I'm not sure that would settle the issue. Perhaps the
Schulz museum has the original?
D. D. Degg
> Any opinions? I suppose that checking microfilm would give us some more
> information, though I'm not sure that would settle the issue.
The Galveston (Tx) Daily News via newspaperarchive.com
has Schroeder in the last panel and the Schulz signature
in panel three.
D.D.Degg
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
>Here's another curiosity from the same volume that I've wondered about
>before. The 10/18/68 strip shows Franklin leaving Charlie Brown's
>neighborhood after having been freaked out by the strange people he's
>met. Charlie Brown chases after him, but it's too late. The question
>is, what is the correct ordering of the final two panels?
Here is the reply I received when I asked Lisa Monhoff, the archivist
at the Charles Schulz museum.
---
The Museum does not own the original Peanuts comic strip from October
18, 1968 and we don't know who does own it or if it even still exists.
After looking at the reprints of the October 18, 1968 strip though, we
believe the third panel should have the signature, not the fourth and it
should remain in that order.
The joke of the October 18, 1968 strip seems to work best with the panel
with the signature appearing third and Charlie Brown soundly defeated by
uttering "Good Grief" and then Franklin saying "Like, wow" -- as if he
needed one more reason (Schroeder's Beethoven fixation) to realize this
wasn't an average neighborhood. If panel three were placed last, the
last phrase uttered would be Charlie Brown's "But..." - which would make
sense if the next day's strip concluded his statement, but the next's
day's strip didn't seem to follow this story line.
We have found that Schulz did not always sign his name in the fourth (or
last) panel of his Peanuts comic strips in cases where the artwork and
design of the panel did not allow space for his signature; it seems that
Schulz would sign his name in other panels in these cases and that
perhaps he didn't want his signature to crowd the art work. For
instance, the December 28, 1966 strip is signed in the third panel
(reprinted in "Peanuts: A Golden Celebration") and it clearly only works
with the panels in that order. The museum's (art) Collections Manager,
Nina Fairles, has seen several other cases on originals where Schulz
signed in panels other than the last one as well.
Sincerely,
Lisa